well if we don't change our legislation then it is illegal to own an mp3 player unless it is for the explicit purpose of listening to music you have written. or personal file carrying.
It is illegal to make even one copy of anything you have purchsed.
So Itunes NZ is up the shitter really.
Technically you aren't even allowed to move files around on your computer, because you are making a "copy"

I would have thought more people would be interested in this but I guess not...

Some more interesting items from the bill... oh by the way format shifting will be at the discretion of the publisher... [some of these have been taken from other posts on other sites (mostly public address - I have included a link at the bottom of the page to the great discussion there for anyone interested) because they sum up the information well - appologies to anyone who I may have infringed upon by doing so :-]

//"(1) Copyright in a sound recording and in a literary or musical work
contained in it is not infringed by copying the sound recording, if the
following conditions are met:

There are then 7 conditions that must be met, all of which I find reasonable. However, subsection (2) is the kicker:

"(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the owner of the sound recording is
bound by a contract that specifies the circumstances in which the sound
recording may be copied."

So basically if the publisher chooses to they can restrict how you convert you music - or wether you're even allowed too... so the format shifting is totally pointless because companies can just say that they do not authorise format shifting (which removes any point of having a fair use provision to start with).

Of course there are provisions which allow you to remove the DRM - but to do so legally would be nigh on impossible as demonstrated here...

//I buy a CD, and it has the SonyBMG rootkit on it. If I stick it in my PC it won't allow me to copy the music to my iPod.
Step 1: Under the new Bill, copying music to the one iPod I own is a Permitted Act, so in theory I'm allowed to do this (albeit I can't do it for commercial gain - which is fair enough). However the TPM restricts me from engaging in the Permitted Act.
Step 2: Under s226E(a) I can "apply to the copyright owner or the exclusive licensee for assistance enabling the user to exercise the Permitted Act". I can just see the letter from SonyBMG now - we refuse to help, go buy another copy of your entire music library from iTunes to play on your iPod.
Step 3: Under s226E(b) I can then "engage a qualified person to exercise the Permitted Act on the users behalf ... but only if the copyright owner or the exclusive licensee has refused the user's request for assistance or failed to respond to it within a reasonable time." Note - reasonable time is not defined. Think .. I dunno .... years?
So far, so good. If SonyBMG tell me to clear off, I can go and get one of these qualified persons to crack the DRM for me. And under the Bill, these people are:
- A prescribed library
- A prescribed archive
- An educational institution
So there I am with my shiny new CD in my hand, trying to explain to the receptionist at the National Library (or maybe Archives NZ) how it would be really helpful if they could just clean the TPM off for me, 'cos they're the only people who can legally do this ....

Yeah, fucking, right.

Of course circumventing the DRM is a breach of the act itself and would make you a criminal for holding down the shift key on a windows based computer.

//s226: "TPM ... includes any process, treatment, mechanism, device or system that is designed in the normal course of its operation to prevent or inhibit the unauthorised exercise of any of the rights conferred by this Act." [emphasis mine]

So clearly holding down the Shift key qualifies as a process designed to inhibit the TPM.

s226A(1): "A person ... must not make, import, sell, list for hire, offer or expose for sale or hire, or advertise for sale or hire, a TPM spoiling device that applies to a technological protection measure if (the person) knows or has reason to believe that it will, or is likely to, be used to infringe copyright in a TPM work."

This appears to get you off the hook ... but wait, there's more!

"s226A(2): A person ... must not provide a service, including the publication of information, if --
(a) the service or the information is intended to enable or assist persons to circumvent a technological protection measure; and
(b) knows or has reason to believe that the service or the information will, or is likely to, be used to infringe copyright in a work that is protected by a technological protection measure." [emphasis mine]

Presumably you can therefore keep the whole hold-the-shift-key-down thing to yourself, and avoid criminal conviction. But if you were to tell your girlfriend .... remember, there's no requirement that the service is a commercial one. Simply "publishing" the information by whatever form (verbal advice on the phone? E-mail to a mate having problems with his computer? Drunken conversation with work colleagues?) has the effect of invoking the penalties.

[ external link ]